24 June 2013

Junk Trees

Below is information from 3 separate trees. The 3 tree owners have not signed in for over a year and these are the only trees attached to their profiles.
More after the jump.

 Johnny Depp
 B: 4 june 1992 in arizona, america
 M: 21 Jan 2007 in Kentucky, america to Private Spouse; Note: bleh bleh
 D: 17 july 2007 in buckinghamshire England

 CHILD with Private Spouse
 Poooopeh Depp
 B: 14 may 1996 in tokyo, japan
 D: 14 may 1997 in algarve portugal

 11 more profiles on this tree, all private.


 johnny depp
 B: september 2, 1467 in madrid, spain
 D: march 3, 1998 in barcelona, spain

 mandy moore
 B: June 16, 1564 in madrid, spain
 D: june 16, 1999 in houston, texas

 A child (private) is the only other profile on this tree.


 Johnny Depp
 B: 1456 in South Salmara, Assam, India

 Heidi Klum (1234-1334)

 Adrianna Jessica Menting, b. December 16 in Mexico
 Spouse: Private, grandson of "Johnny Depp"
 Father: Zeus Menting, b. 1000 in Greece
 Mother: Hera Ding Dong, b. 900 in Oceana County, Michigan, USA

 This tree has 10 other profiles, all private.

ⓑⓐⓡⓚⓘⓝⓖ  ⓤⓟ  ⓣⓗⓔ  ⓦⓡⓞⓝⓖ  ⓣⓡⓔⓔ

While hiring overseers to police the trees is not practical or financially feasible, shouldn't those that are utter nonsense be taken down? How many of the almost 3 billion trees on Ancestry (over 2 billion public and over 700 million private) are like these? How much do they affect the performance of Ancestry's servers?
I would think ridiculous photos and clickophile trees cause more site issues than trees like these three but these trees would be easier eliminate. What do you think?

Thanks to Susan for the links to these profiles ;-)
If you have a profile to suggest please send a link to buwtree(at)gmail(dot)com.

PREVIOUS POST: 18th Century Photograph
NEXT POST: Any War Hero Will Do


  1. Without hiring "overseers to police the trees" submitted by members, there are a number of positive things that ANCESTRY could do. By improving the quality of member-submitted data, they would be making a huge positive contribution to creating something like a 'genealogical community.' The best way to do this would be through some sort of wiki-like member feedback mechanism .... there are a variety of ways that it could be implemented. None of them are perfect, but any of them would be preferable to the chaos that exists now. The cynic in me expects that none of them will be implemented for the simple reason that ANCESTRY's revenue stream is based entirely on quantity, not quality.

    1. We now have proof that Ancestry values quantity over quality. I posted this on their FB page last week. It was removed. After one of the admins actually read it she messaged me and said I could re-post it. Today I did. It was removed again.